appendix G - Selection of New Projects
Project sponsors are required to complete the Project
Justification Package in Appendix I.
Information provided by the sponsors is used to determine if the
projects meet screening criteria and produce merit evaluations. Every project is required to meet all of the
screening requirements before progressing to merit evaluation. Those passing the screening test are categorized
according to type, following the general organization of the budget categories
in the New Visions Regional
Transportation Plan, namely:
Bridges
Pavement
Transit Support
Safety
Community
Compatibility/Economic Development
Congestion Relief
Bicycle and
Pedestrian
The projects are then evaluated for merit. The results of the merit evaluations are used
by CDTC to choose which projects receive funding.
The following are the screening criteria that must be
met for a project to advance to merit evaluations:
1. Consistency with TEA-21, and CDTC and local plans,
2. Provision of local matching funds,
3. Defined scope and timing
4. Meeting an identified need
5. Federal-aid eligibility
Regional Transportation Plan: Each proposed
project was required to be consistent with the RTP. The relevant RTP was the New Visions Regional Transportation Plan, was adopted in March
1997. New Visions includes a set of 25 Planning and Investment Principles
to guide capital programming, in addition to 10 strategies (with 43
implementing actions, long and short term).
Consistency with these principles and strategies was required to insure
that the New Visions implementation.
Major projects with system level impacts are not
considered for TIP programming unless they are a recommended action from New Visions or a sub-area or corridor
study. Some of these projects may be
further subject to a Major Investment Study (MIS) in order to progress towards
implementation.
All capacity increasing projects should be consistent
with the Congestion Management System (CMS).
CDTC has performed extensive analysis of existing congestion in the
Capital Region, as documented in CDTC's Metropolitan Congestion Management System: A
Structured Approach to Addressing Congestion Issues in Regional Transportation
Plan Development, Short-Range Programming and the Management System, which
was adopted by the CDTC in December of 1995.
CDTC's priority is to address existing congestion
problems, with projected future congestion being a lesser priority, subject to
a "risk analysis" (See New
Visions Congestion Management Principles for more information).
Boundary Compatibility: Each proposed
project is required to be consistent/complimentary with the facility (or
proposed facility) in the adjacent jurisdiction if the project is near or
crosses a jurisdictional boundary.
Land Use Linkage: Linear capacity improvements are
required to be linked to local land use management. To maximize the effectiveness of existing
facilities, a plan or commitment to access management, construction of new
local streets or provision of supplemental transit services must be in place
prior to major capacity work.
Public and Sponsor Support: All projects are
required to be consistent with community desires as documented in local land
use plans or other policy documents, at public meetings, or through other
applicable means.
Seven Planning Issues of TEA-21: ISTEA
established sixteen planning factors to be considered in the development of the
TIP. TEA-21 summarizes these into seven
planning issues. All projects were
required to address at least one of these factors, as listed below:
1. Support the economic vitality of the
2. Increase the safety and security of the transportation system for
motorized and nonmotorized users;
3. Increase the accessibility and mobility options available to people and
freight;
4. Promote and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation and
improve quality of life;
5. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system,
across and between modes, for people and freight;
6. Promote efficient system management and operation; and
7. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.
Project sponsors are required to be willing and able to
provide the local matching funds. All
fund sources are not required to be "in hand", but need to have a
"reasonable expectation" of being in place by the year of
programming. Specifically, the issue of
the provision of the required 20% local match share is required to be directly
addressed. Public/private financing
possibilities should be addressed, if applicable. Transit operators are required by FTA to
document financial capacity in the adopted TIP.
All facilities that require an ongoing operating budget to be useful are
required to demonstrate that such financial capacity exists.
All projects are required to be well defined. Project limits, the intended scope of work,
and the project concept needed to be clearly stated. Planning projects must have further defined
longer-range federally eligible projects.
Preliminary engineering and right-of-way are acceptable project phases,
provided that the other screening requirements have been met for the project as
a whole. Phases of larger construction
projects are requested to be usable segments that will provide benefit to the
traveler. Properly completing the
Project Justification Package will satisfy these criteria.
Phases programmed in the TIP must able to be implemented
by the end of the five-year programming period in that TIP.
All projects are required to be justified based on
meeting an identified transportation system need according to below
criteria.
Bridge projects are required to meet NYSDOT criteria
for a deficient bridge. This includes the
following two conditions:
1.
Condition Rating: The current Federal Sufficiency
rating must be less than "50.0", and either (B), (C), or (D) applies;
(B)
State Condition Rating must be less
than 3.5 by the year of programming, based on the current rating deteriorated
at a rate of 0.1 points per year from the date of last inspection to the year
of programming; or
(C)
Structure has one or more primary
(critical) structural features[1] rated "2" or less, based
on its last inspection, or
(D) The municipality can demonstrate
some deficiency not covered in (B) or (C), which makes major rehabilitation or
replacement mandatory within 5 years.
2.
Approach Work[2]: Approach work should not exceed 25% of the structure cost, or total
cost of structure. Approaches using
federal-aid should not exceed twice the cost if the project were done with
state or local funds.
Pavement Projects: Pavement projects are required to be
of a scope that is consistent with implementation with federal-aid funds. Because the pavement condition score does not
fully describe overall road conditions or substandard design features, pavement
score is not used as a screening criterion, although it plays an influential
role in project merit evaluation.
Mobility Projects: Mobility projects must address a
Level of Service of E or below, either under current conditions or projected
conditions in the year of programming, in order to be evaluated further.
Other Project Types: Other project types are based on the
project justifications provided by the project sponsor. Wherever possible, this justification
includes the results of existing management systems or other performance-based
standards.
All candidates must be eligible for either the STP or
CMAQ program. Eligible types of
projects are listed below.
¨
Highway
(limited access facilities)
·
Construction
·
Reconstruction
·
Resurfacing
·
Restoration
·
Operational
improvements
·
Safety
improvements and programs
·
Research and
development and technology transfers
¨
Bridges
·
Construction
·
Reconstruction,
including seismic retrofit
·
Resurfacing
·
Restoration
¨
Transit
·
Anything
eligible for FTA funding, including fixed guideways,
vehicles, maintenance facilities.
Federal regulations prohibit the use of STP funds for ongoing operating
expenses.
·
Safety
improvements and programs
·
Research and
development and technology transfers
¨
Streets and
Roads (conventional facilities), functionally classified as urban collectors or
above, or, in rural areas, minor collectors or above. All old FAU/FAS routes are grandfathered.
·
New signals
and signal timing
·
Restriping
·
Resurfacing
·
Bus turnouts
·
Construction
¨
Carpool
projects
¨
Park and
Ride lots
¨
Bicycle and
pedestrian projects
¨
Traffic
monitoring, management and control facilities and programs
·
Capital
·
Operating
¨
Planning
programs
¨
Enhancement
activities include the following. Note
that Enhancements must relate to surface transportation.
·
the
provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles,
·
acquisition
of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites,
·
scenic or
historic highway programs (including provision of tourist and welcome center
facilities),
·
landscaping
and other scenic beautification,
·
historic
preservation,
·
rehabilitation
and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures, facilities and
canals,
·
preservation
of abandoned railway corridors including the conversion and use thereof for
pedestrian or bicycle trails,
·
control and
removal of outdoor advertising,
·
archaeological
planning and research,
·
environmental
mitigation of water pollution due to highway runoff,
·
reduction of
vehicle-caused wild-life mortality while maintaining habitat connectivity,
·
provision of
safety or educational activities for pedestrian and bicyclists, and
·
establishment
of transportation museums.
¨
Transportation
Control Measures
¨
Development
and establishment of management systems
¨
Wetlands
mitigation
According to the TEA-21 and additional guidance made
available by the FHWA, eligibility for CMAQ funds is achieved by meeting any of
the following criteria:
¨
Projects in the adopted State
Implementation Plan (SIP): As a marginal nonattainment
area eligible for maintenance certification, the Capital District has no
projects listed in the current SIP.
¨
Specific Transportation Control
Measures (TCMs) listed in the Clean air Act Amendments
of 1990, Section 108:
(b)(1)(A)
(i)
programs for improved public transit;
(ii)
restriction of certain roads or lanes
to, or construction of such roads or lanes for use by, passenger buses or high
occupancy vehicles;
(iii)
employer-based transportation
management plans, including incentives;
(iv)
trip reduction ordinances;
(v)
traffic flow improvement programs that
achieve emission reductions;
(vi)
fringe and transportation corridor
parking facilities serving multiple occupancy vehicle programs or transit
service;
(vii)
programs to limit or restrict vehicle
use in downtown area or other areas of emission concentration particularly
during periods of peak use;
(viii)
programs for the provision of all
forms of high-occupancy, shared-ride services;
(ix)
programs to limit portions of road
surfaces or certain sections of the metropolitan area to the use of
non-motorized vehicles or pedestrian use, both as to time and place;
(x)
programs for secure bicycle storage
facilities and other facilities, including bicycle lanes, for the convenience
and protection of bicyclists, in both public and private areas;
(xi)
programs to control extended idling of
vehicles;
(xii)
programs to reduce motor vehicle
emissions, consistent with Title II, which are caused by extreme cold start
conditions;
(xiii)
employer-sponsored programs to permit
flexible work schedules;
(xiv)
programs and ordinances to facilitate
non-automobile travel, provision and utilization of mass transit, and to
generally reduce the need for single-occupant vehicle travel, as part of
transportation planning and development efforts of a locality, including
programs and ordinances applicable to new shopping centers, special events, and
other centers of vehicle activity;
(xv)
programs for new construction and
major reconstruction of paths, tracks or areas solely for the use by pedestrian
or other non-motorized means of transportation when economically feasible and
in the public interest. For the purposes
of this clause, the Administrator shall also consult with the Secretary of the
Interior; and
(xvi)
EXCLUDED BY TEA-21: programs to encourage the voluntary
removal from use and the marketplace of pre-1980 model year light duty vehicles
and pre-1980 model light duty trucks.
¨
Developing and establishing management
systems for traffic congestion, public transportation facilities and equipment,
and intermodal transportation facilities and systems
demonstrably contributing to attainment;
¨
Capital and operating cost of traffic
monitoring, management, and control facilities and programs demonstrably
contributing to attainment; and the
¨
Construction of bicycle and pedestrian
facilities.
Every project that meets the minimum requirements
(screening criteria) is fairly evaluated.
The merit evaluation procedure uses the best available information from CDTC's models, from corridor studies, and from project
sponsors. Wherever possible, measures
that cut across modes, such as relative cost effectiveness, are used. The qualitative benefits of projects are
directly incorporated into this merit evaluation procedure. This merit evaluation emphasizes different
project attributes, although the same criteria are used, for the following
project types:
¨
Bridge projects;
¨
Pavement projects;
¨
Transit Support projects;
¨
Safety projects;
¨
Bicycle and Pedestrian projects;
¨
Community Compatibility and Economic
Development projects; and
¨
Mobility and Congestion Relief
projects.
The data required for project
analysis is outlined below.
Project merit evaluations are presented using a common
format, as shown in the blank Project Evaluation Fact Sheet on page 10. The merit
evaluation procedure is detailed in Appendix H.
BLANK Project Fact Sheet
Candidate #, Candidate name
LOCATION: |
BENEFIT/COST
RATIO |
!Zero Divide |
DESCRIPTION: |
TOTAL
BENEFITS (k$/yr) |
|
PROJECT TYPE: |
SAFETY |
|
COST: $ M (total all phases) LIFE: yr |
TRAVEL
TIME |
|
SPONSOR: |
ENERGY/USER |
|
CURRENT CONDITION: |
LIFE
CYCLE VALUE |
|
FUNCTIONAL CLASS: AADT: |
OTHER |
|
PRIORITY NETWORK(S): |
ANNUALIZED
COST (k$/yr) |
|
CONGESTION RELIEF:
AIR QUALITY BENEFIT:
REGIONAL SYSTEM LINKAGE:
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY (PLANNED OR
EXISTING):
COMMUNITY OR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT:
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:
BUSINESS OR HOUSING DISLOCATIONS:
BICYCLING:
WALKING:
GOODS MOVEMENT:
TRANSIT USE:
INTERMODAL TRANSFERS:
SCREENING ISSUES:
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:
The TIP as a whole,
must, according to federal law, conform to the Federal Clean Air Act, be financially
"reasonable", be consistent with the long-range plan, and address
seven planning issues spelled out in TEA-21.
Conformity with the Federal Clean Air Act must be determined, in
cooperation with NYSDOT, using a methodology developed cooperatively by NYSDOT
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This methodology, which uses CDTC's Systematic Evaluation and Planning (STEP) model to
estimate PM peak hour Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and speed data, incorporates
projected changes in land use and population and emissions estimates from the
Environmental Protection Agency's
The goal of CDTC is to
produce a "balanced" TIP that contributes to implementation of the New Visions plan. The
CDTC approach meets both the letter and spirit of federal regulations by
allowing CDTC to look at the array of projects and their relative merit, and to
establish a program that best implements the range of goals included in the
RTP. The following criteria/principles were intended to produce the best
possible program of projects to benefit the Capital District transportation
system, regardless of mode.
The STP and CMAQ programs have minimal requirements for geographic
distribution of funding. Considerations of geographic equity must stem
from considerations addressed in the planning process. CDTC based its programming decisions upon
relative project merit and the balanced attainment of progress towards
long-range goals -- not on geographic considerations apart from New Visions.
An emphasis on implementation of the long range plan goals and objectives
should not lead to a program that creates larger future funding commitments
than funds can reasonably be expected to be available.
The Capital District Transportation Authority
(CDTA) is primarily responsible for submitting the requests to CDTC for transit
related funded projects. This includes
transit operating assistance, equipment and support facilities. Unlike the project selection process for
flexible funds described above, CDTC defers to the judgement
of CDTA, the region’s public transit operator, for project recommendations for
dedicated transit funding from the state and federal governments.
Candidate capital projects are identified through transit improvement
studies and evaluations of fleet and other capital requirements, keeping in
mind transit development goals and supporting objectives established as part of
CDTA's Capital Planning Process. CDTA maintains a
short-range transit capital plan that identifies a series of actions and
strategies that provide the basis for coordinating and prioritizing CDTA
transit capital improvements. The TIP
follows directly from the plan and generally is a simple project listing. Details of CDTA’s
capital program components are included in Appendix A. The final decisions regarding project
inclusion in the program are made by CDTC on a recommendation from the Planning
Committee.
Projects proposed by private operators are also
entertained under CDTC's TIP process, in accordance
with CDTC's Private
Operators Policy, adopted on
Round
One programming is the phase of program building that considers new projects based
on merit. Projects are grouped by
category and arrayed according to merit after filtering the projects. The filtering process used is identical to
that which proved successful in the last major CDTC programming effort in
1997. The filtering process focuses upon
assigning Round One funds to cost-effective projects in important locations.
In
each category, projects are listed in descending order of quantitative
benefit/cost ratio in two groups: those
that pass at least two filters and those that do not. The three filters are detailed below.
Benefit/Cost Ratio: Projects whose
Benefit/Cost ratios were in the top half of the Benefit/Costs of a given
category pass this filter. Those in the
bottom half, fail this filter. For
Bicycle/Pedestrian projects, a Weighted Score was used instead of Benefit/Cost
ratios.
Functional Classification: Projects
were awarded a passing status for this filter if the proposed work was on an
NHS road or Principal Arterial. Other
projects fail this filter. This filter
served as a way to make sure that regionally significant facilities are
elevated in consideration.
Priority Network Score: Every project
was assigned a priority network score.
Projects in the top half of the Benefit/Costs of a given category pass
this filter. New Visions task forces
defined priority networks as a way to focus investment where it is needed most
and where the ultimate project design is likely to achieve multiple objectives. Priority network status is used as (an
admittedly imperfect) proxy for the extent to which a project implements New
Visions goals and principles. Relevant
priority networks are assigned by project type, namely:
Project Category |
Relevant Priority
Networks |
---|---|
Bridge |
Bicycle/Pedestrian and Freight |
Pavement |
All |
Safety |
All |
Transit |
All but Freight |
Economic Development |
All |
Mobility |
All |
Bicycle/Pedestrian |
Bicycle/Pedestrian, Access Management, Transit |
CDTC Staff assigned points to specific projects as follows:
¨
3 points for being on a relevant priority
network with features that address priority network concerns;
¨
2 points for being on the network (but no known
features at this time);
¨
1 point for including features (even if not on
the network); and
¨
0 points for not being on the network, and
including no known features.
The following text is lifted from the New Visions 2021 plan
to describe the contents of each of the priority networks.
Bicycle and
Pedestrian Priority Network: A bicycle
and pedestrian priority treatment network provides a "backbone" for a
region-wide bicycle and pedestrian travel system. The ±355 mile network contains those
facilities which have high existing or potential bicycle and pedestrian travel
but also present many barriers, including high traffic volumes/speeds, limited
pavement space and busy or confusing traffic patterns. These facilities connect major activity
centers, are accessible to residential areas via local roads, and have few
practical alternatives nearby. The facilities
included in the network are listed in the Making the Capital District More
Bicycle- and Pedestrian-Friendly: A Toolbox and Game Plan technical report.
Arterial (or Access)
Management Priority Network: The New
Visions report entitled Land Use/Traffic Conflict Inventory and Measurement
contains level of compatibility ratings for over 275 roads covering nearly 850
miles of Capital District roadway. The
access management priority network is defined as:
¨
Those road
segments that show a high degree of conflict between commercial or residential
land use and traffic, resulting in poor compatibility (Level of Compatibility
D, E or F); and
¨
Additional
road segments where either the potential for commercial development or
intrusion of vehicle traffic through residential corridors is high, or
significant deterioration in arterial corridor function is forecast to occur by
2015.
This priority network
tentatively includes about 220 miles of roadway. The network is predominantly composed of
state highways in suburban towns.
Goods Movement
Priority Network: The proposed priority
road network for goods movement in the Capital District includes:
¨
The National
Highway System, including intermodal connectors
(approximately 826 lane-miles); and
¨
State
touring routes that currently carry more than 10% trucks in the traffic flow
(approximately 150 centerline miles).
Transit Priority
Network: Traditionally-strong transit corridors such as NY 5, NY 32, US 20,
US 4, and downtowns and potentially-strong corridors such as NY 7, US 9, NY 155
and
Intelligent
Transportation System (ITS) Network: The
Expressway Management Task Force identified a network of expressway and
arterial facilities as the platform for the regional ITS. There should be centrally coordinated traffic
control and/or guidance along these facilities.
The logic is that advising travelers of preferable alternatives before
they enter the most congested areas and facilitating smooth flows along the
alternatives can keep overall traffic conditions from worsening. The regional ITS network contains:
¨
Priority
expressways
¨
Arterials
representing their immediate alternatives (ordinarily either parallel to or
connecting the expressways)
¨
Their
secondary alternatives (which entail more surface street travel), and
¨
Other arterials
that are strategically important because they are spurs of the priority
arterials and/or carry traffic across major travel gateways.
A
county-by-county listing of this
over 250 centerline mile network
is included in the Expressway Management Task Force Technical Report.
Round Two provides funds
for projects from any category for any reason, insuring an opportunity for
projects whose benefits don’t quantify well.
After public review, in
step three, CDTC may program the balance of the funds to projects, insuring
some ability to respond to public comment.
[1] Defined as (1) Beginning and ending abutment
rating, (2) Pier rating (net), (3) Beginning and ending abutment erosion
rating, (4) Primary member rating (net), (5) Pier erosion rating (net), where
the net rating is the lowest value of all the similar elements rated; e.g. a
bridge with two piers, one with a rating of "3" and one with a
"4", would have a net pier rating of "3".
[2] Includes any realignment, reconstruction or
resurfacing beyond the approach slabs (if any) to the structure. Features such as vertical and horizontal
sight distances, curves, grades, intersection approaches adjacent to the
structure will be evaluated. A detailed
cost estimate is not expected; rather a qualitative assessment will be made.